Critics crucify "Da Vinci Code" in Cannes

[Retro]

Critics crucify 'Da Vinci Code' in Cannes
May 16 8:42 PM US/Eastern

The most hotly-awaited movie of the year "The Da Vinci Code" failed to crack an audience of movie critics here at a sneak preview ahead of Wednesday's opening of the Cannes Film Festival.

Several whistles instead of applause were all that greeted the end of Ron Howard's 125-million-dollar film, and worse than that, the 2,000-strong audience even burst out laughing at the movie's key moment.

"I didn't like it very much. I thought it was almost as bad as the book. Tom Hanks was a zombie, thank goodness for Ian McKellen. It was overplayed, there was too much music and it was much too grandiose," said Peter Brunette, critic for the US daily The Boston Globe.

The film version of Dan Brown's mega-best selling book premieres in Cannes on Wednesday before going on worldwide release on Friday. It stars Tom Hanks as symbologist Robert Langdon, called in after the curator of the Louvre is found murdered, his body splayed out covered in symbols.

Langdon and French police cryptologist Sophie Neveu, played by French actress Audrey Tautou, find themselves ensnared in a mystifying hunt to track down the murderer and solve a 2,000-year-old riddle.
The book has already sold some 50 million copies worldwide, been translated into 44 languages and spawned a spin-off tourist industry as well as whipping up a controversy. All ingredients to ensure that it will undoubtedly draw the crowds.

The greatest controversy has been stirred by the book's central theme that Jesus Christ married and had children whose descendants still survive today.

Thus book's detractors will no doubt be comforted to hear that when Hanks reveals who is supposedly the last surviving descendant of Jesus, the Cannes audience couldn't hold back their laughter.
"At the high point, there was laughter among the journalists. Not loud laughs, but a snicker and I think that says it all," said Gerson Da Cunha from The Times of India.

Other critics said the two and a half hour film was confusing to those who hadn't read the book.
"People were confused, there was no applause, just silence," said Margherita Ferrandino from the Italian television Rai 3.

"I have only read half the book, and then I got bored. It's terrible," she added.

"It was really disappointing. The dialogue was cheesy. The acting wasn't too bad, but the film is not as good as the book," added Lina Hamchaoui, from British radio IRN.

Despite being filmed against the backdrop of some of Paris' and London's most impressive and historic buildings -- Howard was even given unprecedented permission to film inside the Louvre -- the film fails to convince, becoming more of a drama-documentary with its overuse of historic flashbacks and other devices to tell the tale.

Hanks seems to get bogged down in the interminable dialogue, whereas Tautou, so brilliant in "Amelie", fails to make an impression.

British actor Sir Ian McKellan however received plaudits for his portrayal of Holy Grail expert Sir Leigh Teabing, playing his role with the right amount of wit and humour.

And Paul Bettany is suitably menacing as a self-flagellating albino monk on a mission to kill.

The film was due to open the 59th Cannes Film Festival later Wednesday, before the real competition gets underway on Thursday, with 20 films competing this year for the coveted Palme d'Or.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/0....mxm43ky2.html

Edit: For some reason I can't edit/correct my typo in the title.

[Mr. Fabulous]

That sucks, I was looking foward to watching it. Ofcourse, it became a big budget and its bound to succeed at lacking real-depth as to the book.

[style_savy]

Good I'm tired of this totally average book getting hype. Some lady on the TV the other day say its gonna be a movie to remember for forever and that the premiere is a huge event of our time. right.....*rolls eyes*

[Anastasia]

Movies are almost NEVER as good as the books. Even when the book is fantastic. When the book is a poorly researched, poorly written, overrated and over hyped snooze-fest, what can you expect from the movie? And I'm not one of those religious people driving themselves into rabid frenzy over it - just an avid reader and history buff who thinks Dan Brown's success with this goes to show that it's not how well you can write, but how well you can promote the hell out of your story that determines success in the publishing world.

I'll probably see it when it's free at the library - I can't stand Tom Hanks, and Ron Howard's movies invariably put me to sleep, but I'm addicted to Ian McKellen. And Alfred Molina isn't bad either

[greeneyebeauty]

I thought the book was good but I hate how people are trying to act like it's a Bible.

[Scott]

I don't like Tom Hanks nor even Ron Howard films either but I suppose the fact that it's based on a book with such interesting subject matter it is attractive. I love Audrey Tatou-really sad that she didn't make an impression. But perhaps that's to do with the writing? Usually Audrey has much stronger performances in her films.

[fashionista-ta]

Originally Posted by Anastasia

Movies are almost NEVER as good as the books. Even when the book is fantastic. When the book is a poorly researched, poorly written, overrated and over hyped snooze-fest, what can you expect from the movie?

Too right, Anastasia

What the book has going for it is it's a real page-turner. Kind of like eating junk food ... you get to the bottom of the bag of chips and think--what the hell was that I just snarfed?!?! It also draws attention to some pretty interesting theories.

I know of a couple excellent TV adaptations of books, and only one movie was as good as (and I think even surpassed) the book, Emma Thompson's Sense and Sensibility, IMO one of Jane's weaker novels.

[Tiny Dancer]

I liked the book, it was a very interesting story. But it's totally hyped, of course.
I'm going to see the movie no matter how bad the critics are though.

[roppal222]

Thing is, the only parts of the book that keep you interested are the scenes where they're all sitting down and actually talking about stuff. It'll be interesting to see how that's translated to the big screen without being boring.

I think the Da Vinci film will be another example of 'don't believe the hype'. Although I'd rather judge it for myself than take a critics' word for it.

That Dan Brown must be raking in the money

[Tinuviel]

ho hum. I wasn't gonna watch it anyways.

[mcswirlgirl]

Tom Hanks movies have always done so well . . . poor thing

[vmob84]

Aww I really liked the book, i mean I didn't take it to seriously but I really enjoyed it...oh well guess the most anticipated movie of the summer might turn into a big ole flop, though I'm sure it won't co as bad as Posideon or MI3 anyways.... and I'll go see it for Audrey!

[Anastasia]

Originally Posted by fashionista-ta

Too right, Anastasia

Did you see what they did to The Shipping News? It's been years since I saw it, Cate Blanchett is one of my favorite actresses, and I still feel personally affronted by its mangling. Cold Mountain was another one that made me want to scream. And Angela's Ashes, which I just saw, finally

What the book has going for it is it's a real page-turner. Kind of like eating junk food ... you get to the bottom of the bag of chips and think--what the hell was that I just snarfed?!?! It also draws attention to some pretty interesting theories.

That's pretty much my boyfriend's feeling on it - I can relate, I used to get the same feeling from old Dean Koontz novels. Pure garbage on most every level, but I got a terribly guilty pleasure from them and couldn't put them down (and I keep trying his newer ones, even though it's obvious he now lacks both an editor and any shred of talent he may have once had). I just couldn't like Da Vinci. I think it was the "fact" page at the beginning that clouded my judgement. It would be like Koontz having a "fact" page before the story begins that states that there's a secret zombie army roaming the earth, sacrificing little green alien babies or something, and then having to deal with all the people who read it and run around spouting off their new found knowledge, "educating" me on when and where this zombie army was founded and how it operates But yeah, I understand in general the joy that can be gotten from poorly written, quick reading fiction.

I know of a couple excellent TV adaptations of books, and only one movie was as good as (and I think even surpassed) the book, Emma Thompson's Sense and Sensibility, IMO one of Jane's weaker novels.

I agree! That was a very well done movie. I also prefer The Princess Bride to the book (I like Golding's other work, but felt that was pretentious and self-absorbed) and that the film of About A Boy was better than Hornby's novel - it had a warmth and wit that the book lacked, especially in the end. Shmaltzy, but I needed it. The Unbearable Lightness of Being is another, sort of - I love both the book and the novel about equally, but for different reasons and in different ways. And Like Water For Chocolate has a certain charm on the screen...but generally books make for crappy movies, there's just no way they can translate properly.

Da Vinci has a 00% at Rotten Tomatoes so far...after the excruciating boredom Hanks and Howard have inflicted on me in the past, I must say, I'm enjoying this

[softgrey]

typo corrected...

[Retro]

'Da Vinci Code' Actor: Bible Should Have 'Fiction' Disclaimer

Posted by Mark Finkelstein on May 17, 2006 - 08:44. If "The Da Vinci Code" was already feeding the flames of controversy with its challenge to the basic tenets of Christianity, actor Ian McKellen managed to pour a refinery tank's worth of gasoline on the fire on this morning's 'Today' show, asserting that the Bible should carry a disclaimer saying that it is "fiction." Video: Windows Media or Real Player, Plus audio MP3
Matt Lauer, in his second day "On The Road With The Code," was in Cannes for the film festival, where the Code will have its debut. It has already been screened to some critics, who have given it decidedly mixed reviews.
As I reported here, NBC reporter Melissa Stark yesterday dipped a timid toe in the sea of controversy when she interviewed Code director Ron Howard, asking how he reacted to the controversy the movie has created . . . for the Church! Sounding more like a sensitivity trainer than a Hollywood director, Howard offered up some ambiguous prose about it being healthy thing for people to engage their beliefs.
Lauer took the bull of controversy more directly by the horns when he interviewed the cast and director Howard today. Said Lauer:
"There have been calls from some religious groups, they wanted a disclaimer at the beginning of this movie saying it is fiction because one of the themes in the book really knocks Christianity right on its ear, if Christ survived the crucifixion, he did not die for our sins and therefore was not resurrected. What I'm saying is, people wanted this to say 'fiction, fiction, fiction'. How would you all have felt if there was a disclaimer at the beginning of the movie? Would it have been okay with you?"
There was a pause, and then famed British actor Ian McKellen [Gandalf of Lord of the Rings], piped up:
"Well, I've often thought the Bible should have a disclaimer in the front saying this is fiction. I mean, walking on water, it takes an act of faith. And I have faith in this movie. Not that it's true, not that it's factual, but that it's a jolly good story. And I think audiences are clever enough and bright enough to separate out fact and fiction, and discuss the thing after they've seen it."
With the camera focused on McKellen, one could hear a distinctly nervous laugh in the background, seeming to come from either actor Tom Hanks or director Howard. McKellen's stunning bit of blasphemy is likely to test the adage that all publicity is good publicity.